[worldwidetraveler]

(02-01-2019 10:27 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Typically, arguments against abortion have a religious basis. You will often hear the phrase "life is sacred" or "life is precious" which are both biblical. The thing is there's nothing really sacred about life. Millions of organisms are born every second and die every second. It's just the way of nature but the "sacred" part was added by humans to assign special importance to themselves.

I think most of society thinks killing another is bad. Even atheist don't want to be killed.

It is more of a matter of when life begins.

Would you feel different if you knew a fetus was alive and felt everything?

[la bodhisattva]

I'd like to hear the feminists' take on a hypothetical abortion policy similar to China. Not that it's law to abort a girls, but what if that was encouraged.

I wonder what their reaction would be if society began to push for the abortions of girls. Would it then become an issue? If it has no value, I'd have to assume no SJW would care.

[MrLemon]

In the next few years, as the great democraphic crash of population decline accelerates in all first world nations, there will be massive and increasingly desperate government campaigns to encourage women to have more children.

When this happens, the moral questions of abortion will no longer control the abortion debate. It will simply change to: "Abortion is Evil"

President Pence will successfully push for a constitutional amendment making Abortion illegal in the entire USA.

Women who got abortions twenty or thirty years before, will be hauled up in front of the courts and charged with Murder. Just like Bill Cosby was convicted of rape for something that, 30 years earlier, would never have been called rape.

[Emancipator]

Society should promote alternatives to those looking at abortion for convenience.

There was a time when many unwanted pregancies were still carried to term by health/smart individuals, and put up for abortion to well means middle-upper class families (Steve Jobs for an example)

I know a couple who cannot have kids naturally who want to adopt but noted that there are limited options to link you (via a state agency) with someone pregnant (basically none because in this urban environment and even the area outside of it as a whole) society/government does not promote this as one of the options, it's always "abort". Thus they actually need to go through the main system of available options, new born babies in care of the state, put up for adoption. This population hugely consists of individuals born out from broken/druggy homes/single mothers, and often have cases where proper pre-natal care was not taken leading to defects/health problems, especially with alcohol/drug use. A big one is FAS, not exactly much to chose from for them.

They're pretty anti-"white saviors", and do not want to adopt a child from a non-white western country, in addition to the process being a lot shadier. But they have discussed options in Eastern Europe/East Asia as the absolute last resort.

Abortion triggers a disgust/shame response whenever a girl mention's it to me, brain goes "soft pass, next", during the pre-bang hunt. I've also had one FWB (who told me she was on BC) hint that she was pregnant and had an abortion, which to this day I have problems dealing with it on both personal/moral sides of the topic. During the slow-burn ghosting period, i prodded her for more information (mostly the lying on being BC), which turns out she viewed abortion as a method of BC, following that exchange she was full ghosted.

I was a bit careless in my early teen player days, weaker pull out game, broken condoms, putting trust in a girl's word, and I think there were 1 or 2 events of miscarriage in the first month and a handful of late period scares. Probably the universe in those earlier days telling me to lock down technique and straighten it out, with the abortion event being the last major pregnancy related scare/issue.

I know that now should such an event to occur in the future, while being pragmatic that today's realty dictates "HER BODY HER CHOICE", my stance (if impractical for either/both of us) would be to carry it to term and link with that earlier mentioned couple, or other childless relatives/friends wanting children but cannot do so naturally (absolutely no same-sex couples).

Conception itself is rather special in itself, it's all the stars aligning, time, health, decisions/turn of events, seems rather "cosmic fate".

Western nations should do (even spend more) to promote the adoption alternative, and diminish the abortion promotion. Just as they should promote their own inner birth rate vs. importing the third world.

[Johnnyvee]

I would actually support globalism, if there was some sort of clear recognition of the necessity to preserve all subspecies of our common genus. (Homo Sapiens) In other words, a policy that would set some sort of population goal for each individual nation, and seek to maintain it`s unique genetic phenotype and the culture that goes with it. (I`m a strong believer in the idea that genetics determine the parameters of what kind of culture you can have.)

This would mean that nations like China and India would be encouraged to drastically reduce their populations, but without altering their demographic composition. While nations like Estonia, the Czech republic etc. would be incentivized to increase their populations. (I guess they are being encouraged to increase their numbers somewhat already.) Each nation would strive for a population goal that for most would mean drastic depopulation, but also seeking again to maintain the countries unique "essence." The ultimate goal would be to have a real diverse planet with strong and independent nation states, populated by various genetic varieties of humans, with the diverse cultures that follow. The global population should ideally be maintained at around 1 billion. No more than that.

As much as I dislike abortions, and especially the late term ones, (They should never be allowed in my opinion) removing abortions as a population control tool is total folly. (Again in my opinion.) We have to face the fact that the planet is massively overpopulated as is. The last thing we need is to add to the problem. Depopulation isn`t the problem, it`s demographic/racial replacement that is the problem.

[MajorStyles]

Abortion is murder. Full stop. That being said, I would consider it if I knocked up some chick that was batshit crazy (as selfish as it sounds).

The list of people - men and women - that regret having aborted a child in their teens is quite long. A tragedy that the media does not have the courage to discuss.

[debeguiled]

(02-02-2019 12:40 PM)la bodhisattva Wrote:  

I'd like to hear the feminists' take on a hypothetical abortion policy similar to China. Not that it's law to abort a girls, but what if that was encouraged.

I wonder what their reaction would be if society began to push for the abortions of girls. Would it then become an issue? If it has no value, I'd have to assume no SJW would care.

This is actually a really practical and clever take on the argument.

If you are debating abortion with a woman maneuver her to stating that she thinks a fetus is just a clump of cells.

Then say, so, you have no problem with with the Chinese policy of aborting only female fetuses?

She is completely stuck. Either she has to admit she doesn't mind girls being aborted and men living, or she has to admit that a fetus isn't just a clump of cells.

This is like turning over a rock and seeing a scorpion scramble for cover.

[Johnnyvee]

(02-02-2019 03:13 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 12:40 PM)la bodhisattva Wrote:  

I'd like to hear the feminists' take on a hypothetical abortion policy similar to China. Not that it's law to abort a girls, but what if that was encouraged.

I wonder what their reaction would be if society began to push for the abortions of girls. Would it then become an issue? If it has no value, I'd have to assume no SJW would care.

This is actually a really practical and clever take on the argument.

If you are debating abortion with a woman maneuver her to stating that she thinks a fetus is just a clump of cells.

Then say, so, you have no problem with with the Chinese policy of aborting only female fetuses?

She is completely stuck. Either she has to admit she doesn't mind girls being aborted and men living, or she has to admit that a fetus isn't just a clump of cells.

This is like turning over a rock and seeing a scorpion scramble for cover.

If she was reasonably intelligent (little chance) she would argue that on the grounds of predominately female fetus abortion being; "a symptom of ingrained hatred towards women" or similar.

[debeguiled]

(02-02-2019 03:44 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 03:13 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 12:40 PM)la bodhisattva Wrote:  

I'd like to hear the feminists' take on a hypothetical abortion policy similar to China. Not that it's law to abort a girls, but what if that was encouraged.

I wonder what their reaction would be if society began to push for the abortions of girls. Would it then become an issue? If it has no value, I'd have to assume no SJW would care.

This is actually a really practical and clever take on the argument.

If you are debating abortion with a woman maneuver her to stating that she thinks a fetus is just a clump of cells.

Then say, so, you have no problem with with the Chinese policy of aborting only female fetuses?

She is completely stuck. Either she has to admit she doesn't mind girls being aborted and men living, or she has to admit that a fetus isn't just a clump of cells.

This is like turning over a rock and seeing a scorpion scramble for cover.

If she was reasonably intelligent (little chance) she would argue that on the grounds of predominately female fetus abortion being; "a symptom of ingrained hatred towards women" or similar.

Then it isn't just a clump of cells. If it is just a clump of cells, she shouldn't care.

[la bodhisattva]

Then she has already painted herself into a corner by admitting that a fetus is more than just a clump of cells.

You could use a lot of preposterous reasons to justify abortion to show how ridiculous these pro-choicers are. How about a woman aborting a baby because she got knocked up by the wrong ethnicity?

Imagine the response to that. A Southern Belle saying, "Oooh my goodness gracious, well I juuust couldn't have black baby. I only had cawnal relations with him cuz I was a little tipsy (teehee) and he did get that interception on Saturday to beat Ole Miss."

If any pro abortion advocate says how disgusting that rationale is, they've lost the argument.

[Lunostrelki]

(02-02-2019 03:13 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 12:40 PM)la bodhisattva Wrote:  

I'd like to hear the feminists' take on a hypothetical abortion policy similar to China. Not that it's law to abort a girls, but what if that was encouraged.

I wonder what their reaction would be if society began to push for the abortions of girls. Would it then become an issue? If it has no value, I'd have to assume no SJW would care.

This is actually a really practical and clever take on the argument.

If you are debating abortion with a woman maneuver her to stating that she thinks a fetus is just a clump of cells.

Then say, so, you have no problem with with the Chinese policy of aborting only female fetuses?

She is completely stuck. Either she has to admit she doesn't mind girls being aborted and men living, or she has to admit that a fetus isn't just a clump of cells.

This is like turning over a rock and seeing a scorpion scramble for cover.

The problem is, the feminists won't say that the Chinese policy is wrong because it forces/encourages you to abort kids. It's only that Chinese patriarchy is wrong because it makes families choose to keep sons over daughters. Feminists love the one child policy because it gave young Chinese women more opportunities to get "empowered."

Let's do a search for it right now. "one child policy china women empowered"

and we get, just from what shows up on Google:

"How the One-Child Policy Has Improved Women's Status in China ..."

"the rise of women in china and the one child policy - Journal of ...
explore how the One Child Policy has affected Chinese women, and whether or not the ... women, typically from urban regions, have become 'empowered' ..."

"China's One‐Child Policy and the Empowerment of Urban Daughters ...
in a shortage of women of marriageable age, and a so-called male ..."

From the first result:

Pro-Death Cult Site Focusing on China Wrote:

The Two-Child Policy (二孩政策) allows all couples to have a maximum of two children. But now, over a year after it has gone into effect, there are also voices saying that the new family planning policy is actually a setback for women’s rights in China and that the One-Child Policy, as controversial as it might have been, has greatly improved the role of women in society in multiple ways.
...
With the implementation of the One-Child Policy, the government strongly pushed the idea of male-female equality. Slogans propagated that daughters could also carry the honor of the family line, and that girls and boys were equally important for the future of China.
...
Another propagated principle during the One-Child Policy was that of later marriage and later childbirth.
...
Although China’s One-Child Policy is mainly known for creating hardships for women, studies have shown that it has indeed helped to greatly improve the position of women in China in terms of gender equality, parental investment, educational attainment, career, and in terms of their familial, societal and political participation (Sudbeck 2012, 55).
...
When placed into a larger perspective, it is apparent that Chinese women have indeed made advantages [sic, should be advances] towards more gender equality within China as a by-product of the One-Child Policy, but that this advancement has come at a high price.

For the feminists, the OCP was kind of like a war that, while not ideal, was a net good because it furthered their cause.

[Zevs]

It should be totally banned, no excuse for it. The argument about about a woman's body or a woman's right. Is a lot of rubbish. It is nothing else but murder.

[Johnnyvee]

(02-02-2019 03:47 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 03:44 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 03:13 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 12:40 PM)la bodhisattva Wrote:  

I'd like to hear the feminists' take on a hypothetical abortion policy similar to China. Not that it's law to abort a girls, but what if that was encouraged.

I wonder what their reaction would be if society began to push for the abortions of girls. Would it then become an issue? If it has no value, I'd have to assume no SJW would care.

This is actually a really practical and clever take on the argument.

If you are debating abortion with a woman maneuver her to stating that she thinks a fetus is just a clump of cells.

Then say, so, you have no problem with with the Chinese policy of aborting only female fetuses?

She is completely stuck. Either she has to admit she doesn't mind girls being aborted and men living, or she has to admit that a fetus isn't just a clump of cells.

This is like turning over a rock and seeing a scorpion scramble for cover.

If she was reasonably intelligent (little chance) she would argue that on the grounds of predominately female fetus abortion being; "a symptom of ingrained hatred towards women" or similar.

Then it isn't just a clump of cells. If it is just a clump of cells, she shouldn't care.

She would ignore any practical consequences or contradictions and apply her ingrained ideology instead. To people like that, it`s the "metaphysical" ideal that matters, not the empirical real world phenomenon at hand. I`m just trying to argue like a Feminist "scholar" would here.

Of course, you could try to point out that we`re all just clumps of cells, regardless of age. (In fact we`re more bacteria than cells if you see the the whole body as one ecosystem of sorts.) But I don`t think you would get anywhere. Take Roosh`s advice and never argue with a Feminist/SJW.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I'm pretty sure that even a lowly clump of cells is life, and a lowly clumps of cells with human DNA is definitely a human life.

However, I don't subscribe to "all life is sacred" mantra. Some lives are completely worthless (think serial killers and similar psychopaths for example), and for many others there can still be whatever extenuating circumstances that make it justifiable or even necessary to end them (e.g. euthanasia for painful terminal illnesses, emergencies when literally having to pick between mother and child's life, etc.).

As far as fetuses go, well - being fetuses they're practically immune to 99% of those circumstances listed above and by the virtue of not having done anything yet definitely cannot be considered worthless. In other words, you shouldn't murder a fetus just like you wouldn't murder any random passerby, even if they were in a coma and had no brain activity. Other than the literal "pick between the life of mother and child" emergency situation which represents probably 0.001% of all abortions, it's simply unjustifiable. As others said, it's murder for convenience.

Even worse, abortion is not just a crime against life - it's also a crime against common sense. It's the ultimate act of waste, indulgence and laziness on both a personal and societal level. Going ahead with it corrodes both that person and everyone involved in their life from that moment henceforth. You can argue that it prevented the birth of an unwanted child that would have grown up in poverty and perhaps became a criminal, but was the person who was ready to murder that child for convenience any better on a personal level, any more of an asset to society?

That said - abortion has always been with us and it is here to stay. You can make it illegal all you want, there will always be concoctions, back-room surgeries, neglect and even plain old suicide and/or infanticide that let someone who doesn't want that baby to get rid of it.

In that light, for most of my life I used to strongly believe that legal abortion was a necessary evil. It's going to happen anyway, so we might as well tolerate it a bit and cut down on its other negative effects. All that's asked in return for legal abortion is a bit of solemnity and recognition of what a grave act abortion is, so that no one would engage in it lightly or carelessly.

The left has made a mockery of that promise in five critical ways.

1. Abortion has mutated from a necessary evil to a "human right"

This puts personal freedom as abortion's the sole deciding factor, which is not what was intended. The original intent was guided only by a balance of good and evil.

2. Trivialization of abortion and turning it into a status symbol

On top of having to listen to endless rationalizations about potential this and that and why this necessary evil is actually not evil or not that bad, we have gone a step further and now actually have abortion being treated as something positive, a rite of passage or a mark of liberation. For example, recently some US-based attention whore live-streamed her own abortion, killing the baby that she was perfectly equipped for and that was guaranteed a comfortable life with her.

3. Introducing profit considerations into abortion

You'd think the solemnity of this act would protect it from the basest of human motives but apparently not - we have Planned Parenthood managers on camera haggling over the most profitable way to murder a fetus so that they can buy themselves a fancy new car.

4. Eugenics and potential for abuse on a societal scale

It's well known that Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger was a movie-grade-villain type of eugenicist who wanted to exterminate black people, Aborigines and marriages, but this is not about black people. Indians abort girls. Feminists abort boys. Chinese abort Uyghurs. Cucked whites abort everything. Accepting legalized mass abortion invariably produces a loaded cannon that can be turned on any undesirable group to produce widespread destruction.

5. Distorting and expanding the term "abortion" to the point of absurdity

In the past, accepting abortion involved the assumption that since we're killing a human being, at least we'll try to do it before it looks too much like a human being or before it would be too painful or haunting. Well, we all thought that it was impossible, but just a few decades down the line we have states legalizing the abortion of babies at 7, 8, 9 months and even at the very moment of birth. There was already a landmark study published discussing "fourth-trimester abortion" (i.e. legalized infanticide). We're plummeting down not a slippery slope, but a slippery cliff. Where does it end?

For all of these reasons, I have to say: fuck legal abortion. This is not what was promised. This is not what was agreed on. These people have made an absolute mockery of a right that was granted just as a necessary evil, and so that right should be taken away.

With great power comes great responsibility - but the left has no sense of responsibility.

[debeguiled]

(02-02-2019 05:53 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  

She would ignore any practical consequences or contradictions and apply her ingrained ideology instead. To people like that, it`s the "metaphysical" ideal that matters, not the empirical real world phenomenon at hand. I`m just trying to argue like a Feminist "scholar" would here.

Of course, you could try to point out that we`re all just clumps of cells, regardless of age. (In fact we`re more bacteria than cells if you see the the whole body as one ecosystem of sorts.) But I don`t think you would get anywhere. Take Roosh`s advice and never argue with a Feminist/SJW.

All you guys are right. You can't win win against a feminist.

Best you can hope for is that quick look of panic/shock that passes over her face when she realizes how truly wrong she is.

Then she recovers and is off to the races like this disaster:

It can still be fun though.

Just hold frame bubba, hold frame!

Tell her you already have a girlfriend. Give her a slow clap.

[debeguiled]

Then make a dramatic exit:

[Jozi]

(02-02-2019 01:53 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

What kind of society do you want?

Somehow aptly this is a case of having to ask which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Would fetuses aborted be burdens to society if born because their prospective mothers are ratshit skanks? Or are the prospective mothers ratshit skanks because we've adapted society to give them a free way out for every shitty decision they make, including failing to use the many and varied forms of birth control available to them? A free way out even if the method for that escape is abhorrent.

Look at the amish, or any wholesome community. How many of their women are giving birth to "useless burdens"? It's the society that creates the woman that creates the so-called need to abort "future burdens". It echoes both ways. Give women access to abortions and you create ratshit skanks who help create the society where people say "I'm glad they're not giving birth".

As for overpopulation, currently Africa, China and India are each going to have two kids for every one you refuse to have yourself. They will be happy to step into your place when you self-genocide to save the planet.

Lets say there was no welfare for single mothers. There were no jobs to be found for women except day care workers, nurses or secretaries. And divorce would be illegal/not possible. Adultery would be punishable with years in prison. There also would be no (((media))) to tell women to be as slutty as possible, but a media run by domestic people promoting families and union among their race/people.

The main argument against abortion in this case would be a moral one. But I just don't share your morals in that all life must be protected at all times. Call me "weak" for not sharing your religious views, but I could easily call you weak too - who is right or wrong is subjective.

I could argue if she wanted to cough up her own money to abort her future child you're just saving civilization from a future career criminal. An underground abortion market would be created too where poor women would go to non-educated "Doctors" who'd kill both her and the baby (like in the Philippines), and rich women would get it done by a professional and won't even be left with a scar.

You can't drag the Amish into this argument because they all live in very small, tight-knit communities. If the Amish had cities the size of New York (where their women could roam freely without prying eyes) then I'm sure you'd have a lot of "useless burdens" growing inside their stomachs too.

In the end, no rule or law exists in a vacuum but affects society in different ways depending on how the rest of the book of law is written. If you ban abortion in today's society, what you'd actually get is more people being born from low IQ welfare recipients, and the falling white demographics would fall even faster. You'd have even more single mothers depended on the state, and most of them would be black or latino.

Quote:

Or are the prospective mothers ratshit skanks because we've adapted society to give them a free way out for every shitty decision they make, including failing to use the many and varied forms of birth control available to them? A free way out even if the method for that escape is abhorrent.

This is an argument against abortion that I could get along with. And I agree, if abortion was illegal we'd be more able to distinguish from good and bad prospective mothers. On the other hand, if you can't tell she's a bad bet regardless, then you probably are of a bad genetic mixup yourself.

And on top of that, we all make mistakes in life, especially in our teenage years. I am all for promoting society's best and cut the lesser people out of the gene pool. But human robots that never make a mistake or take a gamble might not actually be the "best" genes to carry forward in the long run. And if we create such harsh laws that any deviance from the established dogma practically kills you or your future reproductive success, then what we'd end up with eventually is a bunch of insectoids.

It's easy to see the beauty of complete right wing fascism in the current Weimar Republic ("on steroids"), and that arguing for something slightly less than Christian fascism would be seen as "giving in" or being "weak". But in my opinion wanting to go completely and utterly in the opposite direction of Weimar is more of an emotional response to the current decay of society than a logical one.

[LEMONed IScream]

Quote:

America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broad-minded.

A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broad-minded man is one who will accept anything for a reason—providing it is not a good reason. It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not in logic. The breakdown that has produced this natural broad-mindedness is mental, not moral. The evidence for this statement is threefold: the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words, the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and lastly the love of novelty.

The science of religion has a right to be heard scientifically through its qualified spokesmen, just as the science of physics or astronomy has a right to be heard through its qualified spokesmen. Religion is a science despite the fact the some would make it only a sentiment. Religion has its principles, natural and revealed, which are more exacting in their logic than mathematics. But the false notion of tolerance has obscured this fact from the eyes of many who are as intolerant about the smallest details of life as they are tolerant about their relations to God.

Another evidence of the breakdown of reason that has produced this weird fungus of broad-mindedness is the passion of novelty, as opposed to the love of truth. Truth is sacrificed for an epigram, the Divinity of Christ for a headline in the Monday morning newspaper. Many a modern preacher is far less concerned with preaching Christ and Him crucified than he is with his popularity with his congregation. A want of intellectual backbone makes him straddle the ox of truth and the ass of nonsense, paying compliments to Catholics because of “their great organization” and to sexologists because of “their honest challenge to the youth of this generation.” Bending the knee to the mob rather than God would probably make them scruple at ever playing the role of John the Baptist before a modern Herod. No accusing finger would be leveled at a divorce or one living in adultery; no voice would be thundered in the ears of the rich, saying with something of the intolerance of Divinity: “It is not lawful for thee to live with thy brother’s wife.” Rather would we hear: “Friends, times are changing!” The acids of modernity are eating away the fossils of orthodoxy.

Belief in the existence of God, in the Divinity of Christ, in the moral law, is considered passing fashions. The latest thing in this new tolerance is considered the true thing, as if truth were a fashion, like a hat, instead of an institution like a head.

The final argument for modern broad-mindedness is that truth is novelty and hence “truth” changes with the passing fancies of the moment. Like the chameleon that changes his colors to suit the vesture on which he is placed, so truth is supposed to change to fit the foibles and obliquities of the age. The nature of certain things is fixed, and none more so than the nature of truth. Truth may be contradicted a thousand times, but that only proves that it is strong enough to survive a thousand assaults. But for any one to say, “Some say this, some say that, therefore, there is no truth,” is about as logical as it would have been for Columbus who heard some say, “The earth is round”, and others say “The earth is flat” to conclude: “Therefore, there is no earth.” Like a carpenter who might throw away his rule and use each beam as a measuring rod, so, too, those who have thrown away the standard of objective truth have nothing left with which to measure but the mental fashion of the moment.

The giggling giddiness of novelty, the sentimental restlessness of a mind unhinged, and the unnatural fear of a good dose of hard thinking, all conjoin to produce a group of sophomoric latitudinarians who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a “mental projection”; who equate Christ and Buddha, and then enlarge their broad-mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is as good as another, but even that one world-religion is just as good as another. The great god “Progress” is then enthroned on the altars of fashion, and as the hectic worshippers are asked, “Progress toward what?” the tolerant comes back with “More progress.” All the while sane men are wondering how there can be progress without direction and how there can be direction without a fixed point. And because they speak of a “fixed point”, they are said to be behind the times, when really they are beyond the times mentally and spiritually.

In the face of this false broadmindedness, what the world needs is intolerance. The world seems to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between good and bad, the right and the wrong. There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make “intolerance” mean hate, narrow-mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broadmindedness, and American good nature.

What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.

America is suffering not so much from intolerance, which is bigotry, as it is from tolerance, which is indifference to truth and error, and a philosophical nonchalance that has been interpreted as broad-mindedness. Greater tolerance, of course, is desirable, for there can never be too much charity shown to persons who differ with us. Our Blessed Lord Himself asked that we “love those who calumniate us, for they are always persons,” but He never told us to love the calumny.

In keeping with the Spirit of Christ, the Church encourages prayers for all those who are outside the pale of the Church and asks that the greatest charity be shown towards them. Charity, then, must be shown to persons and particularly those outside the fold, who by charity must be led back, that there may be one fold and one Shepherd. Shall God, Who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on all religions, be denied the name of “Wisdom” and be called an “Intolerant” God?

The Church is identified with Christ in both time and principle; She began thinking on His first principles and the harder She thought, the more dogmas She developed. She never forgot those dogmas; She remembered them and Her memory is Tradition. The dogmas of the Church are like bricks, solid things with which a man can build, not like straw, which is “religious experience” fit only for burning. The Church has been and will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, and untruth affect not personal matters on which She may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, the Church will admit the heretic back into the treasury of Her souls, but never the heresy into the treasure of Her Wisdom. Right is right even if nobody is right; and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong.

The attitude of the Church in relation to the modern world on this important question may be brought home by the story of the two women in the courtroom of Solomon. Both of them claimed a child. The lawful mother insisted on having the whole child or nothing, for a child is like truth—it cannot be divided without ruin. The unlawful mother, on the contrary, agreed to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe, and the babe would have died of broad-mindedness.

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN

[Leonard D Neubache]

(02-02-2019 03:47 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 03:44 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 03:13 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 12:40 PM)la bodhisattva Wrote:  

I'd like to hear the feminists' take on a hypothetical abortion policy similar to China. Not that it's law to abort a girls, but what if that was encouraged.

I wonder what their reaction would be if society began to push for the abortions of girls. Would it then become an issue? If it has no value, I'd have to assume no SJW would care.

This is actually a really practical and clever take on the argument.

If you are debating abortion with a woman maneuver her to stating that she thinks a fetus is just a clump of cells.

Then say, so, you have no problem with with the Chinese policy of aborting only female fetuses?

She is completely stuck. Either she has to admit she doesn't mind girls being aborted and men living, or she has to admit that a fetus isn't just a clump of cells.

This is like turning over a rock and seeing a scorpion scramble for cover.

If she was reasonably intelligent (little chance) she would argue that on the grounds of predominately female fetus abortion being; "a symptom of ingrained hatred towards women" or similar.

Then it isn't just a clump of cells. If it is just a clump of cells, she shouldn't care.

Gender isn't determined until the child chooses it for themselves.

Checkmate, bigot!

[Blue Bayou]

(02-02-2019 05:54 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Oh. Sorry, zero rep chump. Is my dialogue not up to your standards?

No Leonard, your dialogue is lame. Not only have no avoided the question, you have also employed ridicule as a means of deflection.

Let me help you answer the question regarding the decision to abort the child of your wife's rapist.

The answer is that you would seek an abortion on behalf of your wife. The alternative, raising the child of your wife's rapist, is not an option that a man could tolerate.

So therein lies the flaw in your argument. While you are happy to moralise against others that choose an abortion, you also would seek an abortion for your wife under certain circumstances.

Please correct me if I am wrong and that raising the child of your wife's rapist is ok with you.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Your binary outcomes are a sign of a small mind.

Build some rep points and people will take you more seriously. I'll answer your lame hypotheticals once you get ten.

[la bodhisattva]

Blue Bayou won't make it through the weekend.

[Blue Bayou]

(02-02-2019 09:16 PM)la bodhisattva Wrote:  

Blue Bayou won't make it through the weekend.

la bodhisattva...is that you?

[la bodhisattva]

thread-13005.html

[Blue Bayou]

(02-02-2019 10:19 PM)la bodhisattva Wrote:  

thread-13005.html

Sorry I hurt your feelings